Political Blog

Find posts by keyword
Find posts by date

Print
Email
|

Paul responds to another Grayson attack

by Joe Arnold

WHAS11.com

Posted on February 26, 2010 at 12:46 AM

On the defense after the Trey Grayson campaign's third attack ad this week, the Rand Paul campaign has released a statement that attempts to do what Trey Grayson is also trying to do, define Paul's views for Republican primary voters.  After ads attacking Paul's previous statements on coal and abortion, this time it's Paul's national security views under scrutiny.

The statement is in response to a Grayson TV commercial that uses a sound bite of Paul from a Tennessee rally for his father's presidential bid in 2008.  On the tape, Paul says:

   "Unless you cut some of what we're doing militarily, you cannot balance the budget."

But, the Paul campaign now says he "supports robust funding for our military. Under Dr. Paul’s vision, the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase."

Grayson has previously hammered Paul on what appears to be an evolving position on several questions related to the Guantanamo Bay detention center, such as whether GITMO should be closed, where to try suspected terrorists and what to do with them.  When Paul told a Kentucky Association of Counties candidate forum in November that he did not want Guantanamo Bay closed, Grayson staffers distributed a copy of a page from Paul's campaign website in which Paul appeared to support shutting GITMO down.

In the new statement, Paul's campaign has boiled down his GITMO views:

Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil.   He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees.  He would end visas that allow terrorists to come to our country with our permission.
 

The Grayson camp will undoubtedly cite examples of where Paul has stated positions that vary from that summary.  With media interest primed by the notoriety of Congressman Ron Paul, (R-TX), son Rand Paul has been interviewed presumably hundreds of times in recent years.  Coupled with videotape of speeches at rallies, opposing candidates have a wealth of material to mine for potentially damaging and/or contradictory statements. 

Though this is Rand Paul's first run for office, his political exposure is more like an incumbent's compared to Grayson who is in the middle of his second term as Secretary of State, an office which offers relatively fewer opportunities for controversy.

The questions for voters include:

  •  Who is offering the most accurate version of Paul's positions, Rand Paul or Trey Grayson?
  •  Is there a statute of limitations on previous statements or positions?  Trey Grayson has said as much as he distances himself from his previous life as a Democrat and supporter of President Bill Clinton.  
  • If a candidate has changed a position, what does that reflect? Political expediency?  Flexibility? Dishonesty?  

By putting Paul on the defensive and introducing possible doubts in Paul's conservative bonafides, the week belongs to Grayson.  Yet, the fact that Trey Grayson's first TV and radio ads talk as much about Rand Paul as they do Trey Grayson acknowledges that Paul is leading the GOP primary. 


 

Paul campaign statement:

 

Rand Paul: A Strong National Defense and a Pro-American Foreign Policy
 

BOWLING GREEN, KY – In response to Trey Grayson’s third attack ad in three days, the Rand Paul campaign issued the following statement:
 
As Trey Grayson falls further behind and his campaign flounders, he continues to desperately and negatively attack Rand Paul with distortions and outright lies.
 
There is no candidate who stands for a stronger national defense then Rand Paul.
 
Dr. Paul has clearly stated that the most important function of the federal government is national defense. Rand supports robust funding for our military. Under Dr. Paul’s vision, the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase.
 
Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil.   He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees.  He would end visas that allow terrorists to come to our country with our permission.
 
Rand Paul would do something very few politicians have tried to do in recent years in matters of war and defense:  uphold what our Constitution dictates.    According to our Constitution, the United States should go to war only when Congress declares war.  When our national security is threatened, Dr. Paul would not hesitate to authorize swift military action to destroy the threat, and he has clearly stated he would have done so in Afghanistan.
 
Additionally, Rand has clearly stated that once war is underway, how we wage war is up to our generals and the President.  It is Congress’ job to decide whether or not the threat requires war.  It is our commander-in-chief’s and military’s job to win it.
 
Do we really want 535 busybody career politicians trying to micromanage the military?
 
In a way, Trey Grayson is right. But not in the way he thinks:  There is a difference between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson.   Only Rand Paul will both protect our country and uphold our Constitution. 
 
As the son of a veteran, Dr. Paul find these attacks on his positions disgraceful.    Dr. Paul is proud of the United States military and knows that they are the greatest fighting force in the world and that without them, we would not have the freedoms we enjoy today.
 
Because of that, Rand will fight to make sure that our brave fighting men and women are allowed to do their job and protect America .
 
Because our brave men and women in the military are sworn to protect our county, Dr. Paul will make sure they can do their job.  They shouldn’t be forced to be a police force for foreign lands.  They should not be forced to buy guns from our enemies; they should be allowed to take them. That's what they are asking to do.
Dr. Paul, like President Bush when he was running for office, will oppose reckless “nation building” or burdening our troops by making them the world’s police force.
 
And, Dr. Paul will never allow United States troops to serve under the command of the United Nations.
 
Dr. Paul believes there is room to cut waste from all budgets.  If Trey Grayson doesn’t believe that, why is he running for office right now, when Americans across the nation are crying out for cutting out waste, fraud and reckless spending?
 
One particular area Rand will target is the billions of dollars we waste on foreign aid. It is a shame that Trey Grayson is not serious about balancing budgets and refuses to take a hard look at where we can save taxpayer dollars in all aspects of federal spending, while still protecting our country and taking care of our fighting men and women.


 

Print
Email
|